First thoughts on lattice design...

Engineering diagram for proposed 2 cavity module planned for Step V (c/o Bross)

SS and FC positions and dimensions, centred on Step IV: pdf

Based on:
1. Engineering drawing of AFC
2. Engineering drawing of SS
3. FC built dimensions

Blackmore, Victoria wrote:

SS and FC positions and dimensions, centred on Step IV: pdf

Based on:
1. Engineering drawing of AFC
2. Engineering drawing of SS
3. FC built dimensions

Also uploaded table of "as built" coil dimensions and positions, with positions corresponding to z = 0 at the centre of the FC.

Notes on our meeting 14:00 18Aug14:

Updated slides with optics solutions/discussion

Updated magnet position document. Now includes:
- table of 'as built' coil dimensions
- maximum currents and current densities coils have been operated at
- diagrams of coil locations within Step IV.

Slides for this afternoon

MAUS lattice for StepPi reference version 1 uploaded.

Symmetric lattice slides v4. Conclusions:

The cooling performance is okay and it is really similar to a "production" lattice.

I uploaded reference version 2:

• Changed mode to ++-- to avoid optical emittance growth issue
• Added cooling hardware

Beam should be set up to have constant beta in 4 T field:

• beta_trans = 333 mm
• alpha_trans = 0
• canonical angular momentum = 0
• p = 200. MeV/c

By email from Pavel

Hi All,

I put together a G4beamline deck. Bz seems ok, but the beta function is off
by quite a bit (any ideas?). I start with beta=333 mm @ z=-4050 mm.
Hopefully, this is something I can sort out in the morning.

Pavel

Bz.png
beta.png

Deleting old versions of magnet dimensions document to avoid confusion. Uploading version with diagrams and tables of dimensions & current densities.

(Credit goes to C. Rogers for spotting the swapping of current & current density in the FC's column -- now fixed)

Symmetric lattice slides v5 uploaded...

Slides for this afternoon's meeting.

ICOOL vs G4beamline comparison for the reference design.

Blackmore, Victoria wrote:

Slides for this afternoon's meeting.

The above slides with slide numbers!

Updated slides after today's meeting.

ICOOL vs G4beamline comparison for the reference design.

"Alternative lattice" files

Not-to-scale "drawings" of the lattices used for the plots in the DOE review document. Contains both the 'reference' and 'alternative' lattices, with current densities given for 200 MeV/c simulations.

Updating 'DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries' (deleted in item 32 so we avoid duplication), to include the aluminium absorber windows and helium windows that were added to the reference geometry.

Adding note that describes the MAUS and G4BL simulations that made the plots for the DOE review document. Also adding the geometry files the note derives its numbers from.

The MAUS version used by C. Hunt (including all geometries and run scripts) has been uploaded to launchpad: lp:~christopher-hunt08/maus/maus_DOE_review_version

Updated to reflect final changes made to geometry before final submitted plots were created with the reference lattice.

NB: This replaces 'DOE_Review_Lattice_Geometries.pdf'

Latex files used to create the lattice geometry note

Added the Geometry File used to generate the plots that were added to the DOE report. This file includes the Tracker He windows, but not the AFC Windows.

File renamed more appropriately.

Updates made to the text (figures and tables remain the same).

Please find attached simulation files for the 6D cooling run which I presented as last slide on Tuesday

And analysis script...

The most recent Step 3pi/2 geometry for the - settings, as presented at CM40.
Non-linear effects appear to be ruining the emittance near the downstream field flip. See the ++- setting for better behaviour.

Adding the geometry and configuration files that were used to produce the plots presented by Jean-Baptiste at CM40 for the ++-- Setting of the reference design.

All using 200 MeV/c momentum positive muons and 6mm input emittance at the upstream tracker.

Geoemtry 5: Only Primary absorbers.
Config 5: Emittance_l = 0.004, alpha_l = -1.0

Geometry 11: Includes Secondary absorbers.
Config 12: Emittance_l = 0.020, alpha_l = 0.0
Config 16: Emittance_l = 0.004, alpha_l = -1.0

MPB draft note

Attached plots vs z

• reference_plots_vs_z.tar.gz
• alternative_plots_vs_z.tar.gz

This is tracking of 10k particles. Alternative and Reference have primary absorber only. cuts are listed in simulation_analysis.log. Plots which Victoria asked for are beta_vs_z*, emittance_trans_vs_z*, bz_vs_z*

For reference I attach the simulation_analysis script I used to generate the plots. Let me know if there is a problem. I will try to clean up the plots vs input emittance and upload them next.

Victoria spotted a problem, I screwed up the SS current by ~ 5%. I will pick up my P45 on the way out. Revised alternative plots vs z attached. Probably explains the mismatch the others were seeing if they used the correct SS currents. I fixed some other badness:

• I now start alternative and reference from the same point in the SS i.e. different point in global coordinate system.
• I added windows to alternative (but I don't have much Helium in the Helium volume and I have not run the geometry verification scripts to check that it looks okay)

the transverse emittance performance plots. I note that the alternative has a kink at highest emittance value, probably this means that the cooling is cut dominated here...

...and here attached the radius plots.

Victoria asked for 3 sigma, they didn't look so good so I made 95 % and 99 % radius plots as well. We should do something similar for emittance I think.

I included three aperture guides, SS (200.5 mm), RF (210 mm), FC (235.5 mm).

Latest paper version including plots so far (this is the whole zipped directory, so includes all root files from C. Rogers & C. Hunt to date)

Updated with latest plots.

These are the configuration files and geometries that I was using to make the plots for the report. Please excuse the arbitrary numbering scheme. There was a system (two in fact - which is why they don't seem to make much sense). Numbers correspond as follows:

Step_3pi2_alt_4.dat - Alternative geometry, rematched by Jaroslaw, Primary absorbers only
Step_3pi2_alt_5.dat - Alternative geometry, rematched by Jaroslaw, Primary and Secondary absorbers
Step_3pi2_ppmm_5.dat - Reference geometry, Primary absorbers only
Step_3pi2_ppmm_11.dat - Reference geometry, Primary and Secondary absorbers

Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_18_em_6.py - Configuration file for Alternative Geometry 11, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_ref_ppmm_19_em_6.py - Configuration file for Alternitive Geometry 5, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_4_em=6.py - Configuration file for reference Geometry 4, 6mm input beam
Conf_multi_Step_3pi2_alt_5_em=6.py - Configuration file for reference Geometry 5, 6mm input beam

Corrections from dan kaplan (by hand)

Corrections from Chris Booth.

Further comments from John Cobb.

Comments from Kevin by email and in attachment

Dear All,

Some additional comments- minor I think except for the note 
in my earlier message.

Best wishes,

Kevin
________________________________________
From: Kevin Ronald
Sent: 10 August 2016 10:25
To: chris.rogers@STFC.AC.UK; j.lagrange@imperial.ac.uk; j.pasternak@imperial.ac.uk
Subject: Demo paper

Hello All,

It may be a little odd as the appointed referee, but I will send some more comments
on the paper today- mostly very minor so far, but something is wrong in para 2 page 2
regarding radiation lengths and Z- If I missed this before I apologise.

I think it should say ...material with low atomic number (Z) in which...

Best wishes,

Kevin

The paper was accepted